But isn't that the core problem? WHY is J.J. the most expendable character? WHY is Prentiss the second most expendable? One could argue that the decision to fire A.J. and reduce Paget isn't sexist, but the fact that they CAN, so easily, because neither character has made a huge, lasting impact on the overall team/show/story - that is what's sexist.
As someone pointed out earlier in this post (I think it was here...), 18-49 year old males are the key demographic for just about anything. Advertisers look not just at the ratings, but how the ratings break down - "Hey, CBS," they say, "the economy sucks and we're cutting back on our advertising budget. It shows here that Charlie Sheen is huge with these guys we like, and CM is too - when you DON'T focus on these broads. Let's do something about that, cool?" And CBS says, "Yes, sir, advertiser man, sir. Whatever you say."
I don't think the actual act of firing A.J. and reducing Paget was a sexist decision; it was a business decision, pure and simple. It's the circumstances that allowed these events to occur that show the sexist cracks in our society. Watch the advertising: do you see ads for cleaning products, or do you see ads for Home Depot? If you answered the latter, then the ladies are expendable from a business point of view.
The sad part is how we allow the media to define gender roles for us. A lot of people have a hard time swallowing strong women playing strong roles. Look at women in films: they're either the lead in a romantic comedy, or they've shed their femininity to the point that they're a guy with boobs (Lara Croft, anyone?). In other words, they either appeal almost solely to women, or they're created so that a guy can lust after them without having to feel any icky emotions. Ew.
It's a chicken-or-egg scenario, really. Is sexism rabidly rampant in our society, or is it the popular culture portrayal of gender roles that keeps us all in our tidy little boxes? In Sweden there are far more commercials for cleaning products depicting men cleaning the house; men take an active roll in raising the kiddos by taking paternity leave; and as much as that sort of society might appeal to me on an intellectual level, there's a part of me that says, "but that's women's work!" And that makes me sick. And what makes me even sicker is the fact that I KNOW it's just cultural mores (as largely defined these days by the media) that make me think it.
Ok, sorry, this got WAY long. My main point still stands: the casting change decisions were business ones, not sexist ones, but it was the inherent sexism in the media that created the situation for the casting changes.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: Jun. 26th, 2010 04:20 pm (UTC)As someone pointed out earlier in this post (I think it was here...), 18-49 year old males are the key demographic for just about anything. Advertisers look not just at the ratings, but how the ratings break down - "Hey, CBS," they say, "the economy sucks and we're cutting back on our advertising budget. It shows here that Charlie Sheen is huge with these guys we like, and CM is too - when you DON'T focus on these broads. Let's do something about that, cool?" And CBS says, "Yes, sir, advertiser man, sir. Whatever you say."
I don't think the actual act of firing A.J. and reducing Paget was a sexist decision; it was a business decision, pure and simple. It's the circumstances that allowed these events to occur that show the sexist cracks in our society. Watch the advertising: do you see ads for cleaning products, or do you see ads for Home Depot? If you answered the latter, then the ladies are expendable from a business point of view.
The sad part is how we allow the media to define gender roles for us. A lot of people have a hard time swallowing strong women playing strong roles. Look at women in films: they're either the lead in a romantic comedy, or they've shed their femininity to the point that they're a guy with boobs (Lara Croft, anyone?). In other words, they either appeal almost solely to women, or they're created so that a guy can lust after them without having to feel any icky emotions. Ew.
It's a chicken-or-egg scenario, really. Is sexism rabidly rampant in our society, or is it the popular culture portrayal of gender roles that keeps us all in our tidy little boxes? In Sweden there are far more commercials for cleaning products depicting men cleaning the house; men take an active roll in raising the kiddos by taking paternity leave; and as much as that sort of society might appeal to me on an intellectual level, there's a part of me that says, "but that's women's work!" And that makes me sick. And what makes me even sicker is the fact that I KNOW it's just cultural mores (as largely defined these days by the media) that make me think it.
Ok, sorry, this got WAY long. My main point still stands: the casting change decisions were business ones, not sexist ones, but it was the inherent sexism in the media that created the situation for the casting changes.
Also, CBS acted like shit heads.